[Ace] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-06: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-06: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I also have a but of trouble interpreting this sentence:

    As resource-constrained devices are not expected to support both transport
    layer security mechanisms. Clients and Resource Servers SHOULD support DTLS
    and MAY support TLS. A Client that implements either TLS or DTLS but not
    both might fail in establishing a secure communication channel with the
    Resource Server altogether.

I am assuming the Resource Servers(RS) are not constrained. Would it not make
sense to say that RS SHOULD support both TLS and DTLS to ensure
interoperability with resource-constrained clients that support either TLS or
DTLS but not both ?